Was The Destruction Of Alderaan Morally Just? - Star Wars (1977) Discussion

[–] BKB (10092) a year ago

Oh my.. I'm really happy we never had social media back in 1976 to endure questions like this.. You're way over thinking this which is something I see quite often in modern day thanks to social media..

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) a year ago

Are you trying to make an analogy to a particular contemporary situation in real life?

reply

[–] Theman (1229) a year ago

If anything the Empire should have destroyed more planets.

reply

[–] Costumer (1824) a year ago

Ok, lets take this seriously.

First, any Imperials killed would likely be military or military support personnel. They can easily be considered legitimate targets in a military operation.

So, the reverse: The entire population of Alderaan couldn't be considered legitimate military targets as there is no evidence, as far as we know, that the entire planet was in rebellion against the empire.

In addition, Tarkin wasn't targeting Alderaan because it was haboring rebels. It wasn't using it as a stressor to make Leia give him information. If he didn't intend to attack them, that could be considered authorized; getting a terrorist to give information. However, even after she gave him the information he wanted (ignoring for the moment the fact that she lied; he didn't know that at this point) he destroyed it anyway. Why? Because it was a better target to cause fear in the general population.

So, in my view, under normal rules of war, no, he wasn't justified under any circumstances.

Author of the Sodality Universe:
The Road fro Antioch
In the Markets of Tyre
Flight to Lystra
The Theater of Ephesus
The Council on Jerusalem (coming real soon now. In final edits.)

The Shattered World Series begins in 2025.

reply

[–] KingBob (2246) a year ago

Define “morally just”. In my opinion no it wasn’t because as Tarkin said it wasn’t a military target, it was mostly innocent civilians.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3358) a year ago

I'm assuming you brought this up because of what is happening around the world today, right?

No matter what the reasons are, the bigger nation (or empire) is ALWAYS going to get the blame. As we are witnessing in Russia and Israel. Even though Russia had legitimate reasons to wage war against Ukraine and Israel's response to the October 7th attacks shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone, even Hamas, they're both the bad guys in all this depending on how you look at it.

Now in the context of this movie, we know the Empire didn't have a legitimate reason to destroy Alderaan. They're in the wrong on this one.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 9 months ago

We could probably ask the same thing of the Death Star.

There were probably a lot of innocent support personnel who never once even held a gun that were blown up to death.
Imagine a maintenance worker or a janitor who finally gets a well paying job with great benefits to help his poor family back home calling his mom just seconds before Luke murdered him.
"Hey ma! Guess what? I finally made it! Yeah! I got that sweet job working for the Empire on their brand new space station. My job is to keep it shiny and new looking. It pays really good! I'll be able to send you a thousand credits a month to help you keep the hou...."

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8241) 9 months ago

Congratulations on completing your time travel from the 1980s to present such an interesting question...

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2077) 8 months ago

the Empire, being the reigning power, would absolutely have spun it as a 9-11 type tragedy

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

They should have stuck with Star Destroyers.
Not such sitting ducks, more numerous and not so vulnerable.

That or have some guy put a door over the portals of a DS next time!

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2077) 8 months ago

it's difficult to picture, but the DS did move around, from planet to planet even

how about a trampoline to bounce the missiles back?

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

Now you're talkin!

In the X rated knock off, "Star Whores," it will be a bunch of bimbos with fake implants to make the missiles bounce back.

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2077) 8 months ago

clap clap clap

reply

[–] Costumer (1824) 7 months ago

You could ask, but the answer is clearly different. The Death Star was a military vessel intended to sow fear and terror. It is clearly a military target. And I doubt that there were many, if any, civilian personnel on board. How many civilians would you find on an air craft carrier? The few who might be trusted to be on a military vessel on a military (if unjustified) mission would be well versed in the mission and just as legitimately targetable.

Author of the Sodality Universe
The Road from Antioch
In the Markets of Tyre
Flight to Lystra
The Theater at Ephesus
The Council on Jerusalem

The Shattered World begins in 2025

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1234) 8 months ago

"The Evil Empire was no doubt aware that a number of these insurgents were based on Alderaan and probably hidden among the civilian population."

Really? Because this is literally from the script:

Leia: No! Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons. You can't possibly . . .
Tarkin: You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name the system!

The clear implication -- hell, not even an implication -- it's spelled right out that we are to know that Alderaan is in no way part of the rebellion -- no matter how much they may hate the Empire.

Tarkin does not contradict Leia at all, but reinforces the notion that Alderaan is not a threat.

What this scene is supposed to communicate to the audience is the extent to which the Empire is evil.

Any suggestion that the destruction of Alderaan was justified completely undermines and weakens the intent in the way in which the scene was written and presented.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

Let's be honest: Princess Leia is not known for her honesty or morals.

For instance, she's lying about her mission which she says is diplomatic one to Alderaan when her mission is actually to smuggle the Death Star plans to the rebels. Someone on that planet must have significant weapons if they think they can take on a Death Star. The Empire was right to blow that planet up.

There's several other morally questionable things Leia does. She lies to the Ewoks, who honestly the Empire didn't care about, causing them to get in a war that was honestly none of their business. This is a stone age society that gets mercilessly slaughtered due to the actions of Leia. The Empire was content on coexisting with the indigenous people until Leia and friends "helped" them fight.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1234) 8 months ago

Your points are well made and I suppose one could question her veracity with Tarkin, but the delivery of the line, in the entire context of the scene, is what decides it for me. It was an honest outburst of protest due strictly to the unjustness of the planned action by the Empire.

But to your point, I suppose if there was a rebel element on the planet (or even a military base) we wouldn't expect Leia to be honest about it (why would she?), but Tarkin appears to be quite aware of the emotional impact of threatening her home planet and seemingly reinforces what Leia has stated outright.

Don't even get me started on the Ewoks. The ROTJ film loses me when the Ewoks attack the station and the Storm Troopers start chasing them into the woods . . .

Ugh.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

We have other evidence other than Tarkin's suspicion though. In Rogue One, Bail Organa, the senator from Alderaan, is one of the primary leaders of the rebels, as is his adopted daughter Leia.

And then there's the fact that the rebels seem remarkably well funded for a guerilla operation. Where are they getting all these space ships and weapons from? How are they so well financed? It is strongly implied that they got them from Alderaan.

Indeed, after Alderaan is rightfully blown up, the rebel base on Hoth suffers a humiliating defeat as the Empire tries to restore peace to the galaxy and the rebels seem more unorganized than ever.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1234) 8 months ago

"We have other evidence other than Tarkin's suspicion though."

Not sure what suspicion you're referencing here. What suspicion? I am confining my interpretation of Leia and Tarkin to this one film. What comes later (you reference Rogue One) is not relevant. With later films we know that the goal post moves as time flows and the desire for more revenue drags franchises on ad infinitum. Along the way inconsistencies will appear (and sometimes flourish). One easy example of this is in ROTJ when Leia tells Luke about the memories of her mother. Luke has none. Yet over 20 years later the script/film has Luke and Leia separated from their mother at birth in TPM. How could Leia have memories of her mother? One could argue that she's referring to her adopted mother, but that would only make the scene in ROTJ awkward, silly and inconsequential. The easiest explanation is that it's an inconsistency that cannot be harmonized.

So when Tarkin says to Vader: "I think it is time we demonstrate the full power of this station." Then to soldier:
Set your course for Princess Leia's home planet of Alderaan."

Then later to Leia: "You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name the system!"

We understand Tarkins strategy. Go for Leia's soft spot. Her home planet.

Leia wasn't lying when she said that her planet was peaceful. It weakens the story and defeats the entire purpose of the scene to suggest otherwise. Yes, she lied when she told Tarkin the rebel base was on Dantooine (as well she should), but to suggest that a well intentioned and understandable lie here or there dictates that everything she has ever said is a lie is illogical and completely without merit.

I've known some bona fide pathological liars and not even they lie all the time.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

Yeah, but it wasn't just a lie here and there. You even pointed out how Leia lied about remembering her mother in ROTJ.

I guess she knew the truth and didn't want Luke to know that his mom was a skank who spread her legs for a Sith Lord (a lot younger than her even!), as well as being the person who set the empire into motion by nominating Jar Jar Binks as senator who then set in motion the complete destruction of democracy.

In fact, deception is actually a prominent character trait of Leia. She's never honest about who her and Luke are, she rescues Han Solo using deceit by pretending to be a bounty hunter, and she withholds that she is attuned to the force.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1234) 8 months ago

"You even pointed out how Leia lied about remembering her mother in ROTJ."

But I never suggested it was a lie, but that it was an inconsistency introduced -- either deliberately or mistakenly -- by the writer(s).

If it was an inconsistency that was deliberate, then that would reflect an artistic choice by Lucas. I mean, how would you show Leia being raised by her own mother while Luke was separated from both of them (ROTS)? The film was already over two hours long at that point I think. Easier to have the mother die in childbirth, it also adds to the tragic nature of the story.

How many years had passed since ROTJ vs ROTS? Lucas probably just changed his mind on that plot point in the interval.

I see no value in insisting that Leia was lying. Or justification that she was lying. In either film.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

Well, you're forgetting that Lucas made an intricate lore for the Universe long before the prequels even started and had a lot planned out.

You make it just seem that he made it up as he went along, but that's not the case. The reason Darth Vader's reveal of being Luke's father hit so hard was because it was hinted at throughout the first film. Even the name "vader" means "father".

Since Princess Leia is a very developed character, there's no reason to think her personality is a fluke instead of planned out.

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1234) 8 months ago

"You make it just seem that he made it up as he went along, but that's not the case."

That's a stretch based on what I said. Changing one data point in a narrative that is separated by years is hardly a suggestion that he "made it up as he went along."

Here's an example of what I am referring to: In an interview Lucas explained that when he wrote the Star Wars story it was too long to fit into a single film so he divided the film into nine parts (a trilogy of trilogies) and went with "part 4" which became A New Hope. He said he wasn't sure if he would ever have the chance to make another film, so he lifted part of his long story and made ANH. By the time he came to ROTJ, where he originally intended Wookies to be the natives that helped the rebels, he decided to "cut them in half and call them Ewoks."

There. That's a change he made from what he had originally envisioned. Was he making it up as he went along? Making what up? The story is the story, even with small and inconsequential plot points modified with time.

Speaking of "hit so hard," consider Obi Won's reaction immediately after the destruction of Alderaan: "millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." That sentiment, along with Leia's assertion that the planet was peaceful with no weapons, fits together nicely and serves the point of illustrating how ruthless and evil the Empire was to be understood. Not to make the audience think that Leia was a pathologic liar.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

Actually it was one of the other screenwriters (not Lucas) who said it should be a planet of Wookies and Lucas fired him for this and changed it to Ewoks.

It is one of the reasons that ROTJ is criticized so much. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to have those Ewoks in the film.

Lucas does establish her as a liar from the get-go though. We first see her recording a message where she's trying to enlist a jedi warrior to help fight for her, and then she immediately lies and says her mission is diplomatic. This is obviously not the case. This is the first thing we learn about her and it's deliberate.

Indeed, she constantly uses lies and deceit to advance her goals which is why her love interest is also a questionably moral person in Han Solo. A smuggler/deadbeat/bounty hunter.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

I think the Ewoks would have gotten involved anyway.
They see invaders, a threat to their home and they may have attacked without getting involved with the rebels.

I dunno how Leia lied them into fighting.
I thought they did it by choice after 3PO told them the story of it.

reply

[–] Heretic (326) 8 months ago

No, because the Ewoks didn't attack the storm troopers when they built the shield in the first place.

It wasn't until the Rebels poked their nose into the Ewoks affairs that a lot of them got slaughtered.

reply

[–] Martoto (5048) 8 months ago

So was Tarkin being dishonest or immoral when he distinguished Alderaan from an actual, legitimate military target?

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8241) 8 months ago

I was making an amusing (to me anyway) analogous take on a contemporary situation, with a certain country massacring innocent people knowing full well that there wasn't really any of their military targets there.

Although the OP was months ago, if you're looking for any further clues on the identity of the real life "country" acting like an evil empire - it's the same one which deliberately targeted and murdered foreign nationals working for a food aid charity...

reply